Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape and identifier-based lookup, but it does not mention error behavior when no identifier is supplied or any auth/precondition details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the operation, return shape, and identifier mechanism efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return fields and the identifier alternatives. The remaining gap is the missing explicit requirement that at least one identifier must be provided.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does identify both parameters and implies that advertisement_id or advertisement_uuid can be used as alternatives, but it does not clarify whether exactly one is required, whether both may be supplied, or how conflicts are handled.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific read operation and resource: the FAQ list of an advertisement. It also names the return shape ({summary, text}) and distinguishes this tool from the many other *_faqs siblings by explicitly scoping it to an advertisement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the resource name: use this when you need FAQs for an advertisement rather than for an article, page, website, or lead. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_advertisement or how it relates to the other FAQ tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.